Modeling Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Development: Applications in Holland and China
219
Modeling Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Development: Applications in Holland and China Stuart P. Cottrell*, Jerry J. Vaske Colorado State University, USA
Fujun Shen Lincoln University, New Zealand
Abstract: This paper examined the influence of four dimensions of sustainability on local residents’ satisfaction with tourism. Data were obtained from communities bordering Hoge Veluwe National Park (HVNP) in Holland (n = 142) and Chongdugou Village in China (n = 383). As suggested by prior research, we hypothesized that economic, socio-cultural, ecological, and institutional dimensions of sustainable tourism would influence resident satisfaction with tourism. Dimensions were based on 3-6 survey items with reliability coefficients ranging from .55 to .75. Perceived satisfaction, a dichotomous variable, measured resident satisfaction with tourism in their area. From a logistic regression, two dimensions were statistically significant for HVNP and all four for Chongdugou. The HVNP model correctly classified 81% of respondents and 70% for Chongdugou. The socio-cultural component was the strongest predictor for HVNP and the institutional for Chongdugou. Results partially supported the hypotheses that the four dimensions are likely to contribute to resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism. The relative contribution of each dimension, however, varied depending on the site context. We argue for improving the measurement of sustainable tourism indicators and developing standards associated with each indicator. Key words: sustainable tourism, indicators, prism of sustainability, dimensions of sustainability
1. Introduction According to the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), sustainable development should meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable tourism plays an important role in community
* Corresponding author Stuart P. Cottrell, Assistant Professor, Department of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism, Colorado State University, Email:
[email protected]. Jerry J. Vaske, Professor, Department of Natural Resource Recreation and Tourism, Colorado State University. Fujun Shen, Ph.D. Candidate, Environment, Society and Design Division, Lincoln University.
220
Stuart P. Cottrell Jerry J. Vaske Fujun Shen
development, especially in areas abundant in natural capital, yet lacking financial resources or ability to pursue other avenues of growth (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Hardy, Beeton, & Pearson, 2002; Kaae, 2001; Mason & Cheyne, 2000; Mowforth & Munt, 2003; Reid, 2003; Swarbrooke, 1999). Any tourism promotional effort, however, is likely to have positive and negative ecological, economic, and socio-cultural consequences (Eagles & McCool, 2002; Reid). Achieving a balance among these aspects of sustainable tourism is difficult to realize without an institutional perspective to manage, mediate and facilitate growth (Bramwell et al., 1996; Eden, Falkheden, & Malbert, 2000; Ritchie & Crouch, 2005; Spangenberg, 2002; Spangenberg & Valentin, 1999). The institutional aspect emphasizes participatory decision-making processes such as public participation and involvement (Bramwell & Lane; Ritchie & Crouch). The German Wuppertal Institute (Spangenberg & Valentin, 1999) developed a framework of sustainable development referred to as the prism of sustainability, using four dimensions of sustainability including an institutional dimension (see Figure 1). We attempted to identify the usefulness of this framework in monitoring tourism development in the context of sustainability. More specifically, this paper examined the influence of four dimensions of sustainability on local residents’ satisfaction with tourism in communities bordering Hoge Veluwe National Park in Holland and Chongdugou Village in China. Figure 1 Prism of sustainability Residents
Institutional dimension
Economical dimension
Ecological dimension Socio-cultural dimension
Satisfaction with Tourism ^Ç~éíÉÇ=Ñêçã=pé~åÖÉåÄÉêÖ=C=s~äÉåíáåI=NVVV
Modeling Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Development: Applications in Holland and China
221
Framework Overview Indicator frameworks provide systematic means of structuring the identification and selection of relevant issues to be monitored (Waldon & Williams, 2002). Butler (1999) argues that a commitment to monitoring is essential in a sustainable world. The prism of sustainability (Figure 1), adapted from the Wuppertal Institute (see Spangenberg & Valentin, 1999; Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000), depicts interlinkages between economic, social-cultural, ecological, and institutional dimensions of sustainable development. The economic dimension considers human needs for material welfare (e.g., employment) in a competitive and stable environment. The socialcultural dimension refers to individuals’ skills, dedication, experiences and resulting behavior. The ecological dimension emphasizes the need to reduce pressure on the physical environment. The institutional dimension stresses participatory decision-making processes and public participation. Public involvement calls for strengthening people’s participation in political governance (Ritchie & Crouch, 2005). The four dimensions represent a holistic concept of sustainable development (Butler; Eden et al., 2000; Ritchie & Crouch). Valentine and Spangenberg imply that the four dimensions can be linked to indicators for local communities to monitor and evaluate sustainable development.
2. Indicators of Sustainable Tourism Indicators measure progress towards sustainability goals. When tracked over time, indicators help to identify trends in this progression (Waldon & Williams, 2002). Agenda 21, adopted during the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, outlined principles for sustainable development and called for coordinated efforts to develop sustainable development indicators at local, regional, national, and global levels (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Butler, 1999; Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002). In 1995, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) launched a program to develop indicators of sustainable development. Five years later, highly aggregated indicators were completed and applied in many countries. These indicators, however, primarily concentrated on regional, national, and global levels and focused on the physical environment (Dymond, 1997). The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) identified 11 core indicators for sustainable tourism categorized as ecological, social, economic and planning (Dymond). Nine of the 11 were physical indicators (e.g., site protection, development control, waste management planning process). Only two core indicators were psychological (e.g., local and customer satisfaction with tourism) (Dymond). The UNWTO effort provided a useful starting point, but failed to justify the choice of indicators, lacked clear stakeholder participation, did not consider local level indicators, and did not offer a monitoring framework for translating indicator information into management action (Twining-Ward & Butler, 2002). In response, research has focused on developing practical sustainable tourism indicators, emphasizing the importance of local community involvement during sustainable indicator creation (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Manning, 1999; Miller & Twining-Ward,
222
Stuart P. Cottrell Jerry J. Vaske Fujun Shen
2005; Sirakaya, Jamal, & Choi, 2001; Spangenberg, 2002; Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000). Yuan, James, Hodgson, Hutchinson, and Shi (2003), for example, examined local indicator development in a case study of Chongming County, Shanghai, China. Similar work has been conducted by others (Choi & Sirakaya; Dymond, 1997; Hughes, 2002; Innes & Booher, 2000; Miller, 2001). Not all indicators, however, are relevant to every community (Ritchie & Crouch, 2005; Valentin & Spangenberg, 2000). Each community should develop an individual set of indicators within a common structure (Butler, 1999; Cutumisu, 2003; Spangenberg, 2002) in an indicator framework such as the prism of sustainability. This approach (common structure, different indicators) allows for community comparisons without ignoring their specific needs and situations. If the four dimensions of sustainable tourism (ecological, economic, socio-cultural, institutional) are generalizable as suggested by prior research (Berg, Bree, & Cottrell, 2004; Coccossis, Collovini, Konstandoglou, Mexa, & Parpairis, 2001; Cutumisu, 2003; Spangenberg, 2002; Spangenberg, & Valentin, 1999), all four predictors should influence local residents' satisfaction with tourism in a variety of settings whether it be a national park in Holland or a tourism destination in China. This paper examined the relative contribution of the four indicators on satisfaction with tourism development in two dramatically different study locations (i.e., a Dutch National Park and a Chinese tourism village).
3. Study Settings Hoge Veluwe National Park, Holland The Hoge Veluwe National Park (HVNP), established in 1935, is one of the largest national parks (5,500 hectares) in the Netherlands (Beumer & Kerkes, 2003). The area was fenced in the early 1900s to serve as a hunting area with animals brought from abroad. The Hoge Veluwe remained a family estate of Kröller-Müller’s until 1935 when they donated their land to the Dutch government as a national foundation due to financial problems. The founding philosophy and principles of Kröller-Müller, however, remained to preserve the park as a nature reserve combining art and culture with nature. The Kröller-Müller Art Museum and Sculpture Garden located in the center of the park houses fine works of art attracting international tourists while the park itself attracts mostly Dutch visitors (650,000 per year) (HVNP, 2003). There are three village entrances to the park where surveys were taken which were ideal for examining resident beliefs about tourism within the context of a sustainability framework.
Chongdugou Village, China Chongdugou is a small mountain village in Henan province, China, located in the confluence of two rivers and the Shuilian palace historical site. Chongdugou village includes four sub-villages (Chongdujie, Xigou, Nangou, Xiagou) with 400 families (1,263 residents). Local people have traditionally relied on mining, bamboo and timber harvest, each of which contributed to environmental degradation. In 1996, the local government began developing Chongdugou tourism
Modeling Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Development: Applications in Holland and China
223
as an economic alternative. Local residents turned spare rooms into guest rooms for home stays. A local government sponsored tourism company manages the Chongdugou happy-in-farmhouse tourism project characterized by experiencing life on the farm. After four years of development, residents participating in the project have had substantial increases in yearly income (Shen, 2004). Chongdugou is a government sponsored village using agritourism as a rural economic development initiative. The site was selected because the Chinese government was interested in whether agritourism had improved the economic well-being of local residents.
4. Study Purpose The HVNP study was an exploratory investigation that operationalized and applied the prism of sustainability (Wageningen University, 2003). The study examined the relationship of the four dimensions of sustainability on resident satisfaction with tourism development pertinent to HVNP. The Chongdugou study (Shen, 2004) was a follow up to the HVNP investigation using a similar methodology. Although the socio-cultural and economic contexts dramatically differ between China and Holland, sustainable tourism development was important in both locations. Given China’s focus on economic development with tourism (Gan, 1997; Shen; Wang, Guo, & Huang, 1999) and Holland’s focus on socio-cultural aspects of tourism (Caalders, Harmelink, & van Mispelaar, 2002), the relative importance of sustainability indicators for the two settings should differ. Although there is no universal set of indicators for examining sustainable tourism across settings (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005; Miller & Twining, 2005; Ritchie & Crouch, 2005; Sirakaya et al., 2001), indicator frameworks are likely to provide continuity for comparison as a monitoring approach (Faulkner & Tidswell, 1997; Waldon & Williams, 2002). This study examined the influence of four dimensions of sustainability on local residents’ satisfaction with tourism in their location. More specifically, the following research questions were examined: R1 Is there a difference between study location residents and their scores for economic, social-cultural, ecological and institutional sustainability dimension scores? R2 Is there a relationship between the four dimensions of sustainable tourism (economic, socio-cultural, ecological, and institutional) and resident satisfaction with tourism development. R3 Which sustainability dimension is the strongest predictor of resident satisfaction with tourism development in the two settings? The prism of sustainability provided the framework for comparing respondent beliefs about the dimensions of sustainability within each setting (Berg & Bree, 2003; Berg et al., 2004). Given the cultural differences between the two study locations, the indicators of sustainable tourism were
224
Stuart P. Cottrell Jerry J. Vaske Fujun Shen
adapted to each study context. If the constructs are valid, however, each of the four dimensions of sustainability should influence resident satisfaction with tourism.
5. Methods Data Collection Data were obtained from on-site surveys at three communities bordering Hoge Veluwe National Park in Holland and four communities of Chongdugou Village in China. The study population for HVNP included local people at 16 years or older in the villages of Hoenderloo (population [N] = 1,400), Otterloo (N = 2,360), and Schaarsbergen (N = 864). Interviewer completed surveys were conducted in shops and bakeries during one week in June 2003 as a convenience sample; the study was intended to test a methodology and theoretical concepts from the prism of sustainability; therefore, a random sample was not sought. There were 142 respondents (response rate = 46%). Survey counts were Hoenderloo (n = 58), Otterlo (n = 75), Schaarbergen (n = 9). Ancillary analyses comparing villagers from the three communities revealed statistical equivalency in their survey responses; therefore, the data were aggregated for purposes of this paper. For Chongdugou Village, the entire population of all households (N = 400) within the four sub-villages were contacted (Shen, 2004). A Chinese graduate student from Wageningen University in Holland conducted the survey in Chinese in October and November 2003. One individual age 16 or greater from each household was selected at random to participate (i.e., from those people at home, an individual was chosen at random). The ratio of household population of the four villages (N = 1,263) to sample (n = 383) was approximately three to one: Chongdujie (N = 492, sample (n) = 152), Xigou (N = 450, n = 135), Nangou (N = 200, n = 58), and Xiagou (N = 121, n = 38). The overall response rate was 96% (margin of error = ± 4.18% at the 95% confidence interval).
Instrument A three-page self-administered instrument (adapted from previous surveys used by the Tourism Studies group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands) included general understanding of sustainability, site-specific aspects of sustainability, and participation in tourism industry measures. Drawn from previous research (Ankersmid & Kelder, 2000; Cottrell & Duim, 2003; Dymond, 1997; Kaae, 2001; Mitchell & Reid, 2001), four to eight 5-point agreement scale items (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) were used per study to measure each dimension of sustainable tourism (independent variables). Perceived satisfaction (dependant variable) was measured as a single dichotomous variable that asked respondents to indicate whether or not they were satisfied with tourism in their area. For Chongdugou, the sustainability items used in the HVNP study were reviewed by a panel of tourism experts in China. Items were selected and adapted to the Chinese context (Shen, 2004).
Modeling Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Development: Applications in Holland and China
225
Analysis Strategy Reliability analyses were used to examine the internal consistency of items measuring each dimension for both studies. Indices were computed as the average of the variables comprising each dimension. An independent sample t-test was used to examine differences on the sustainability dimension scores between study locations. Logistic regression was used to examine the predictive contribution of each dimension on resident satisfaction with tourism development. An independent sample t-test examined the relationship between residents satisfied with tourism and those not on each of the sustainability dimensions.
6. Results Sustainability Dimension Indices For HVNP, Cronbach reliability alphas were .56 for the 3-item institutional dimension, .65 for the 3-item economic, .71 for the 4-item ecological, and .75 for the 6-item socio-cultural dimension (Table 1). For Chongdugou Village, alpha scores were .53 for the 3-item ecological dimension, .59 for a 4-item institutional, .64 for a 3-item socio-cultural, and .70 for a 5-item economic dimension. Although the institutional and ecological dimensions had relatively low reliabilities, Cortina (1993) and Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) suggest that scales with a small number of items (i.e., 6 or less) and an alpha of about .60 may be acceptable in exploratory studies. Similar institutional and ecological scale items have received higher reliability scores with English speaking samples (Choi & Sirakaya, 2005, Cottrell & Vaske, 2006). The low scores in this study may be attributable to translation issues of the items between English, Dutch, and Chinese. An additive index was computed as the mean of items per dimension.
226
Stuart P. Cottrell Jerry J. Vaske Fujun Shen
Table 1 Scale items for dimensions of sustainable tourism (Hoge Veluwe NP and Chongdugou China) Hoge Veluwe1 NP Chongdugou1 (n=142) China (n=400) Dimensions of Sustainable Tourism
␣
Mean
␣
Mean
Institutional Dimension Local inhabitants have influence on decision making process Tourism contributes to better waste management of the region There is good communication among parties involved in policy and decision making process Participation is encouraged by local authorities Feel I can access decision-making process to influence tourism development in the district Long-term planning by regional authorities can control negative impacts of tourism
.555
2.53 2.2 2.5 2.8
.588
2.76 ----2.8
Ecological Dimension Tourists cause pollution of environment (water, soil and air)* The number of visitors results in disturbance of plants and animal* Increasing exhaustion of water and energy resources was caused by tourist activities* Tourism does not lead to the extinction of species in the region
.712
Economic Dimension Tourism brings more income to the local communities Tourism increases the consumption of local products Tourism creates job opportunities for local people Tourism has resulted in local economic diversification Products and services are better available generally since the development of tourism Region has better infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, public transport) due to tourism I have more education opportunities (vocational training) due to tourism development
.652
-----
3.2 3.37 2.9 3.3 3.8
.553
3.5
Socio-cultural Dimension .755 There are too many tourists coming to the region* Tourism development causes a change of local lifestyle and traditional habits* Tourists annoy me* Visitors to NP cause too much noise* Changes in local lifestyles from tourism is positive Tourism has increased the level of criminality, alcoholism, vandalism etc* Tourism negatively influences norms and values in our area* Local traditions became less important because of tourism* fíÉãë=ãÉ~ëìêÉÇ=çå=R=éçáåí=iáâÉêí=~ÖêÉÉãÉåí=ëÅ~äÉ G=fíÉãë=êÉÅçÇÉÇ=íç=éçëáíáîÉ=ÇáêÉÅíáçå N =aáãÉåëáçå~ä=ëÅ~äÉ=ãÉ~åë=áå=ÄçäÇLáí~äáÅ ␣=`êçåÄ~ÅÜDë=^äéÜ~=oÉäá~Äáäáíó
2.7 2.3
3.86 4.0 3.6 3.9 -----
2.84 2.8 2.9 2.9 ----
.704
3.71 ----3.6 3.8 3.9
---
4.1
---
3.2
3.32 3.2 3.0 3.9 3.8 2.9 3.2 -----
.644
3.34 ----------3.6 3.2 3.3
227
Modeling Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Development: Applications in Holland and China
Dimension Score Comparison To address research question 1, independent sample t-tests were used to examine the mean difference of each dimension index between the study locations (Table 2). Significant differences were found for the institutional, ecological and economic indices. Scores for the institutional dimension were statistically higher (t = 3.27, p < .001) for Chongdugou (M = 2.8) than HVNP (M = 2.5). Using the interpretation given by Vaske, Gliner, and Morgan (2002) for effect size, this difference would be classified as minimal (small effect) (Eta = .142). Scores for both locations, however, indicated a general dissatisfaction with respondents’ ability to participate in decisionmaking concerning tourism. Resident scores for the ecological dimension were higher (t = 6.75, p < .001) and positive for HVNP (M = 3.5) versus Chongdugou (M = 2.8). This difference would be classified as typical (medium effect) (Eta = .284). Dutch residents did not view tourism to the HVNP as a threat to the environment while the Chongdugou village residents viewed tourism development negatively. Mean scores for the economic dimension were relatively positive for each location, however, slightly higher for HVNP (M = 3.9) than Chongdugou (M = 3.7) (t = 2.57, p < .01). Effect size differences were minimal ((Eta = .112). Residents from both locations believed tourism offered economic benefit. This finding signals a positive impact of tourism for Chongdugou since the tourism initiative was initiated as an economic development initiative. For the sociocultural dimension there were no differences (t = .16, p < .87, Eta = .007); mean scores were equal (M = 3.3) and slightly positive with regard to the socio-cultural aspects of tourism development. Table 2 Mean comparisons between Hoge Veluwe NP and Chongdugou Village on each dimension of tourism sustainability Dimensions
Hoge Veluwe NP
1
Chongdugou Village1
t-value
p-value
Eta
Institutional
2.5
2.8
3.27
.001
.142
Ecological
3.5
2.8
-6.75
.001
.284
Economical
3.9
3.7
-2.57
.01
.112
Socio-cultural
3.3
3.3
.16
.87
.007
N =`Éää=ÉåíêáÉë=~êÉ=ãÉ~åëK=lêáÖáå~ä=î~êá~ÄäÉë=ÅçÇÉÇ=çå=RJéçáåí=ëÅ~äÉë=ê~åÖáåÖ=ÑêçãëíêçåÖäó=Çáë~ÖêÉÉ ENF=íç= ëíêçåÖäó ~ÖêÉÉERFK
Resident Satisfaction with Tourism Dutch residents (79%) were more satisfied with tourism than Chongdugou Village residents (37%) ( 2 = 64.61, p = .000, Phi = .386) (Table 3). For HVNP, a majority of local residents (79%) were not directly involved with tourism for their livelihood; only 21% of respondents were directly involved in tourism as restaurant/hotel owners and tended to more satisfied with tourism development than those not (t = -2.76; p = .01). Residents of the four sub-villages of Chongdugou
228
Stuart P. Cottrell Jerry J. Vaske Fujun Shen
all live within the boundaries of the agritourism project destination and 75% were employed in tourism. The daily lives of Chongdugou villagers were more directly influenced by tourism than residents near HVNP. Table 3 Satisfaction with tourism
Satisfaction No Yes Total
Hoge Veluwe NP
Chongdugou Village
Percent (n=129)
Percent (n=301)
21 79
63 37
100
100
O=Z=SQKSNI=é=Z=KMMMI=mÜá=Z=KPUS
Dimension Contribution to Resident Satisfaction For research questions 2 and 3, a logistic regression was conducted to determine the construct validity of each dimension on resident satisfaction. The logistic regression for Chongdugou correctly classified 70% of the responses (68% - No, 73% - Yes, Table 4). The model for Hoge Veluwe correctly classified 81% of the respondents (79% - No, 82% - Yes). The HVNP model ( 2 = 2.40, p = .966) was a slightly better fit to the data than Chongudugou (2 = 15.03, p = .059). Table 4 Classification table - prediction of resident satisfaction with tourism Study Location Satisfaction Tourism
Hoge Veluwe HP1
Chongdugou Village 2
No Yes Overall
% Correct 78 82 81
% Correct 68 73 70
Nagelkerke R2
.55
.30
N=
eskm=lãåáÄìë=qÉëí==O=Z=RRKROI=é=Y=KMMMI=dççÇåÉëë=çÑ=cáíW=eçëãÉê=~åÇ=iÉãÉëÜçï=qÉëí==O=Z=OKQMI=é=Z=KVSS `ÜçåÖÇìÖçì=lãåáÄìë=qÉëí==O=Z=TRKRMI=é=Y=KMMMI=dççÇåÉëë=çÑ=cáíW=eçëãÉê=~åÇ=iÉãÉëÜçï=qÉëí==O=Z=NRKMPI é=Z=KMRV O
229
Modeling Resident Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism Development: Applications in Holland and China
Two dimensions were statistically significant for HVNP (Nagelkerke R2 = .55) and all four dimensions for Chongdugou Village (Nagelkerke R2 = .30) (Table 5). For HVNP, the sociocultural (ExpB = 5.76) component was the strongest predictor followed by the institutional (ExpB = 3.34). For Chongdugou Village, the institutional (ExpB = 3.17) index was the strongest predictor followed by the economic (ExpB = 2.38), ecological (ExpB = 1.73), and socio-cultural (ExpB = .519) dimensions. Table 5 Predictors of resident satisfaction with sustainable tourism Dimensions
B
S.E.
Wald
df
Exp(B)
p-value
Institutional
1.15
0.21
30.18
1
3.17
